An employee hit by a hit-and-run driver can't claim on her employer's auto policy - she wasn't in the company car when it happened. 

In a decision filed August 20, 2026, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company owed her no coverage. It turned on one word. 

In July 2020, the worker parked a Honda Odyssey owned by her employer, 2nd Home Childcare, and walked across a Minneapolis street to a market. Heading back to the van, a hit-and-run driver struck and injured her. 

She sued Berkshire Hathaway, which insured the company car, seeking uninsured motorist benefits. A hit-and-run vehicle counts as an "uninsured motor vehicle" under the policy, so the driver who fled was covered in theory. The real question was whether the worker herself counted as an "insured." 

That came down to the wording. 2nd Home Childcare, a limited liability company, was the "Named Insured." When an LLC holds that spot, the policy says an "insured" includes "[a]nyone 'occupying' a covered 'auto.'" And "occupying" was defined tightly: "in, upon, getting in, on, out or off." 

In state court, the worker had alleged she "was in the act of getting into the 2008 Honda Odyssey when she was hit." On appeal, she dropped that claim. She no longer said she was occupying the van. Instead, she argued Minnesota law let her recover if she was "using" the vehicle and her injuries were a "natural and reasonable incident or consequence" of that use. 

She leaned on a Minnesota Supreme Court case about a woman who got frostbite crawling home after her car stuck in a snowdrift. The court drew a sharp line: that case involved someone insured under the policy she sued on. This worker wasn't. She didn't own a car in her own name, and she wasn't the insured party on the Berkshire Hathaway policy. 

The policy reached people "occupying" the vehicle, which went further than the state's minimum definition of an insured. It did not reach a pedestrian in the road. There was "no statutory or public policy basis to expand coverage not required and not contracted for." 

Because it was undisputed she wasn't occupying the van, she wasn't an insured, and her claim failed.